Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.3830/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000105
Dated, the 31st March, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Udham Singh Nalin
Name of the Public Authority: I.O.C.L.
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 31/3/2009.
2. The appellant, an aggrieved party, has asked for information about the
process of selection and preparation of merit list for LPG Dealership. He has
alleged that the respondent has not followed the prescribed procedure with a
malafied intention to extend favour or to enlist the undeserving candidates on the
basis of false information/documents, submitted by them. In this context, the
appellant has asked for certain information, which have been furnished, except
personal details of the applicants u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the Act.
3. During the hearing, the appellant stated that an applicant, who has been
identified for appointment of dealership on the basis of merit list prepared by the
respondent, has furnished false documents to maximize his score of marks. He,
therefore, pleaded for disclosure of information so as to expose the mal-
practices.
4. The CPIO stated that a number of complaints/representations have been
received from different parties and the matter is under investigation by the
respondent. He also stated that the final award letter, i.e., LoI has not been
issued as yet to any of the applicants. He agreed to disclose the relevant
information, as per the provisions of the Act, after the on-going enquiry, based on
complaints, is completed by the respondent.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
Decision:
5. The process of selection of LPG Dealership has been challenged by the
aspirants on the grounds of unfair means adopted by the parties. The matter is
under investigation by the respondent. The appellant would be free to seek
access to the entire documents after the on-going enquiry proceedings are
complete and over. The respondent is, therefore, directed to complete the
investigation process within three months from the date of issue of this decision.
The appellant would, thereafter, be free to seek access to records which should
be furnished as per the provisions of the Act.
6. The appellant would be free to approach the Commission again in case,
he is not satisfied with the disclosure of the requested information.
7. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Udham Singh Nalin, 2/27, Shradhapuri-I, Kankar Kheda, Meerut –
250 001.
2. Shri. Arun Kumar Girdhar, GM & CPIO, IOCL, UP State Office-II, E-8,
Sector-I, NOIDA – 201 301.
3. Shri. Gautam Datta, Appellate Authority, IOCL, Marketing Division (HO),
G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 005.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2